Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes Fork

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.indexOf
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Array.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes(0) : withoutZero.includes(0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in the provided JSON benchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares four different approaches to check if an element (in this case, 0) exists in an array:

1. `Array.some()`: Returns `true` if at least one element of the array satisfies the provided condition.
2. `Array.filter()`: Returns a new array with all elements that satisfy the provided condition.
3. `Array.indexOf()`: Returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or `-1` if not found.
4. `Array.includes()`: Returns `true` if an element is found in the array, otherwise `false`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares these four approaches to perform a simple check (i.e., checking if 0 exists in the array). Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses:

* **Array.some()**: Pros:
	+ Efficient for arrays with many elements (it stops iterating as soon as it finds a match).
	+ Can be used for multiple conditions by chaining method calls.
* Cons:
	+ May not be the best choice for arrays with only one element, as it will always return `true`.
* **Array.filter()**: Pros:
	+ Returns a new array with all matching elements, which can be useful in some cases (e.g., transformation).
* Cons:
	+ Creates a new array and modifies the original, which may not be desirable.
	+ Can be slower for small arrays due to the overhead of creating a new array.
* **Array.indexOf()**: Pros:
	+ Efficient for arrays with many elements (it stops iterating as soon as it finds the element).
	+ Returns an index, which can be useful in some cases (e.g., accessing an element by index).
* Cons:
	+ May return `-1` if the element is not found, which may not always be what you want.
* **Array.includes()**: Pros:
	+ Simple and easy to read.
	+ Returns a boolean value (`true` or `false`) directly.
* Cons:
	+ May not be as efficient for large arrays due to the overhead of the `includes()` method.

**Library Used**

In this benchmark, no external library is used. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines (e.g., V8) have implemented native support for `Array.includes()`, which can make it faster and more efficient compared to the other approaches.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None are mentioned in this specific benchmark. However, it's worth noting that some modern JavaScript features like arrow functions, template literals, or async/await may be used in the script preparation code or individual test cases.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these approaches, consider:

* Using a library like Lodash (which provides `some`, `filter`, and `includes` functions) or Ramda (which provides similar functions with more functional programming-inspired syntax).
* Implementing your own custom array methods using loops or recursion.
* Using a different data structure, such as a Set or Map, which can provide faster lookups.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on the specific use case and performance requirements.

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/119.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 119 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Array.some	6097791.5 Ops/sec
Array.filter	5793176.0 Ops/sec
Array.indexOf	6037983.0 Ops/sec
Array.includes	6361325.5 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes Fork (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes

Created: 9 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one month ago):